Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PERIHAN AND MEZOPOTAMYA BASIN YAYIN A.S. v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 21377/03

  The object of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to allow the national authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address an allegation of violation of a Convention right and, where appropriate, to afford redress before that allegation is submitted to the Court (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15

  MIRKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies incumbent on applicants, in respect of the alleged violation of the right to legal certainty, contains two connected aspects: on the one hand, the applicants must have aired a Convention complaint at national level (see Azinas v. Cyprus, GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia, cited above, § 75; and Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 47, 21 January 2014), and on the other they must substantiate their complaint with the proper evidence (see Golubovic and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 10044/11 et seq., § 43, 17 September 2013, and, mutatis mutandis, Stefanica and Others v. Romania, no. 38155/02, § 35, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 40959/19

  KHARLAMOV AND SHCHERBATENKO v. RUSSIA

  Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 38, 21 January 2014; Boyko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 17382/04, 23 October 2007; and Darnay v. Hungary, no. 36524/97, Commission decision of 16 April 1998).
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 12307/16

  VYACHESLAV KORCHAGIN v. RUSSIA

  Article 6 § 1 cannot be construed as conferring on litigants the right to obtain a specific form of service of court documents, such as by registered post (see Kolegovy v. Russia, no. 15226/05, § 40, 1 March 2012; Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 39, 21 January 2014; and Avotins v. Latvia [GC], no. 17502/07, § 119, ECHR 2016).

 
• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 3107/18

  TORBIN v. RUSSIA

  Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 38, 21 January 2014).
• EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 74476/17

  ROMANOV AND KAZANTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 38, 21 January 2014).
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 11275/17

  ILYUSHCHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Toutefois, la manière dont la décision de justice est portée à la connaissance d'une partie doit permettre de vérifier la remise de la décision à la partie ainsi que la date de cette remise (Avoti?†s c. Lettonie [GC], no 17502/07, § 119, 23 mai 2016, Perihan et Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. c. Turquie, no 21377/03, § 39, 21 janvier 2014, Bogonos c. Russie (déc.), no 68798/01, 5 février 2004, et Ivanova et Ivashova c. Russie, nos 797/14 et 67755/14, § 46, 26 janvier 2017).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 40947/11

  FRIDMAN v. LITHUANIA

  The Court further reiterates that Article 6 § 1 cannot be construed as conferring on litigants a right to obtain a specific form of service of court documents, such as by registered post (see Kolegovy v. Russia, no. 15226/05, § 40, 1 March 2012; Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 39, 21 January 2014; and Avotins v. Latvia [GC], no. 17502/07, § 119, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 59927/08

  BATS v. UKRAINE

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that when determining whether Article 6 of the Convention has been complied with, it must take account of the proceedings as a whole, including the appeal procedures (see, for example, Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 75, ECHR 2008, and Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 40, 21 January 2014).